Steward requests/Miscellaneous

< Steward requests(Redirected from SRM)
Requests and proposals Steward requests (Miscellaneous) Archives
This page is for Wikimedia wikis having no active administrators. Requests can be made here for specific administrative actions (such as page deletion) to be performed by a steward or global sysop. In other cases:
  • If the wiki does have active administrators, file the request with one of them.
  • If the wiki has an active editor community, any potentially controversial action (deletion of actual content, edit to a protected page, renaming of a protected page, etc.) should receive consensus from the wiki community before being requested here, and a link should be provided to that consensus in the request.
  • For global lock/block requests, file a request at Steward requests/Global.

To add a new request, create a new section header at the bottom of this page (but above the See also section) using the format below:

=== Very brief description of request here ===
{{Status|In progress}}
Give details about your request here. --~~~~

It is helpful if you can provide a link to the wiki (or the specific page on the wiki) in question, either in the header or in the body of your request.

When reporting cross-wiki vandalism, the following template calls can be used to link to a user's contributions across all Wikimedia content wikis (these are for logged in users and non-logged-in users, respectively):

* {{sultool|Username}}

* {{luxotool|IP.address}}

Template {{LockHide}} can also be used in appropriate cases.

To request approval of OAuth consumers please use {{oauthapprequest}} (see the documentation before using).

Old requests are archived by the date of their last comment.

Cross-wiki requests
Meta-Wiki requests

Manual requestsEdit

Please see a list of pages nominated for speedy deletion via {{Delete}} and/or the local equivalent. You can also filter by wikis whose admins are less than X or have not delete since Y.

Copyrighted works on the Esperanto WikisourceEdit

Status:    On hold

The works of Kazimierz Bein (Kabe) are not yet in public domain. The author died in 1959. The pages should be deleted now and undeleted in 10 years. There is no active community on this wiki and there are no admins.

Pages containing copyrighted material:

Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 14:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Robin van der Vliet: As these works have been there for years (2012), they should at least have the semblance of a deletion discussion with whatever community may be there, and for at least a month so allowing suitable opportunity for comment. Though it will be a forlorn hope, please ping the contributor.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I informed the creator of most of those pages here, but I don't really see what we should discuss. The pages constitute a clear copyright violation. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 15:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
They have been there six years, waiting through a discussion is not problematic. The community should be given the right to have that discussion. It allows a local record to exist for others to see, it educates, it informs and allows a community to be a community. It allows a local permalink to be used on any deletion, and a clear authority for people to act to delete. What is so urgent or imperative that a discussion cannot be held.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Also noting that some of the works have been added by Frglz (talk · contribs), so please ping them in the discussion. Thanks..  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I also pinged them in the discussion. For me personally it's not a problem to wait, I am just accustomed to how copyvios work on Commons. When I nominate something there, it gets deleted in an instant without any discussion, that's why I was surprised when you said "at least a month". Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 02:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I moved the discussion to this page, because there are a lot more copyrighted works stored on the Esperanto Wikisource than I first noticed. I linked all I could find in that new page. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 13:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Wikisources work differently to Commons, especially in sporadic editing. I am also unsure exactly the copyright rules they apply, it may not be Commons rules. Being pre-1923 works, if eoWS are working only to US copyright alone, they will not be copyright violations. This is why the community conversation should be taking place by those who know the local rules, rather than applying another wiki's rules.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
If they require the texts to be PD also in the first publication country, the texts should be moved do Multilingual Wikisource before deletion. Ankry (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • What is the status of this request? I am ready to import files to oldwikisource, but I will not do that if their deletion is not due or if it is not to be performed soon (to avoid duplication). Ankry (talk) 06:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Esperanto does not have any native country. They will not be copyright violations. --Sharouser (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
That's not how copyright works. Vermont (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Because Esperanto does not have any native country, they only require the texts to be PD in the United States --Sharouser (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
What language it's in has literally zero effect on whether it's a copyright violation. I could make my own language (or even creative random characters), write something, and if you copy it and put it onwiki it's still a copyright violation. Vermont (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Because this problem happened in a Wikimedia project, It follows Wikimedian policy. --Sharouser (talk) 09:10, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
It is evident that you don't know Wikimedia policy or the legal rules around copyright that we abide by. The three statements you have insofar written are all false, and not based in fact. If your hope was to contribute copyright advice to this discussion, it is unnecessary for you to do so. Vermont (talk) 10:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Would you mind explaining what Wikimedia policy and the legal rules around copyright that we abide by are? Because the rules the English Wikisource and English Wikipedia abide by are that any work PD in the United States is fair game, and I see no reason why the Esperanto Wikisource should be any different.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
+1 AFAIK, any extra copyright related requirements are based on local community decision, not on WMF decision. The ToU states that the content declared as PD should be Public Domain under the law of the United States of America as well as the laws of any other countries as required by the specific Project edition. So it is up to the project to establish extra copyright rules. If I am wrong, please point me where the default copyright rules are defined. Ankry (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Further cleanup issues related to the closure and deletion of Bulgarian WikinewsEdit

@User:George Ho has done a lot of work looking at this, as you will see below. Because of the possibility that some content from here will be incorporated into a different Wikinews project, we are looking to finish cleaning up policy problems before making the content available, and before otherwise (effectively) deleting the wiki. By all means delete the pages that George describes that you think should be deleted. If you think some of the pages should be templated as "possible copyvios" instead, we will make a template available for that purpose. Thank you. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

It is difficult to check if they are copyvios or not. It is better to have sentence to sentence comparisons. Ruslik (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Post the comparisons on-wiki or off-wiki? George Ho (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
On wiki. Ruslik (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
How many sentences per article may I sample without risking copyright infringement? –George Ho (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Sampling for this purpose is not a copyvio, especially since you are directly comparing to original source. But I'm thinking this ought to go on a subpage, because it's really going to clutter this page up. @Ruslik0, what do you think? The preceding unsigned comment was added by StevenJ81 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 3 October 2019‎ (UTC)
Yes, subpage is better. Ruslik (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
It's been months, Ruslik. Must I still make sentence comparisons? Also, deleting the project was discussed. George Ho (talk) 06:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
These requests are moot now, I think. It is better to close them. Ruslik (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Sampling the first bundle... George Ho (talk) 06:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Currently, I'm getting busy with my college work, so I may have to compare other articles at very later time. Seriously, if the stewards won't be able to detect copyvio, why not delete the whole project itself and its content? George Ho (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Possible copyvio content at bg.wikinewsEdit

Status:    In progress

Now that bg.WN is closed/locked and that there are no admins as of date, before transferring remaining content to ru.Wikinews, I would like you to draw attention to the below list of articles that I think are likely copied from third-party sources, like BBC and CNN. The ones that I'm unsure about would be mentioned in separate subsection.

Copied from one of my subpages:

List of articles mentioned in Proposals for closing projects/Deletion of Bulgarian Wikinews:

Most likely

More likely

List of Григор Гачев's (Grigor Gachev's) remaining created articles:

Definitely / Most likely

More likely


Slightly likely

--George Ho (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

More articles seen in another revision:

Definitely / Most likely

More likely


Slightly likely

--George Ho (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

More articles taken from another revision:

Most likely

More likely


Slightly likely

  • n:bg:Тръмп ще направи опит да купи Гренландия — (detector) most of content looks similar to portions of either or The articles were posted on the same day, 19 August 2019. However, bg.wn article was created on 16:47 UTC; the one was published on 07:28 local time (04:28 UTC), twelve hours prior; one, on 07:40 local time (04:40 UTC). Also, the article summarizes Danish PM's response characterizing Trump's idea of buying Greenland as "шега" (joke). The article didn't say that Danish PM used "joke" or "шега" in quotes; I think the paraphrase was POV, wasn't it?

George Ho (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Almost forgot: the revisions from oldid 23418 to oldid 24555 should be deleted or suppressed from public view because, as noted earlier, there is the comparison table comparing one bg.wn with a BBC article. George Ho (talk) 06:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, wouldn't it be sufficient to just delete/blank the table? I'd really prefer to have the history of the village pump readily available if the closing of this project is ever discussed again. I don't think anyone is going to sue WMF (well, at least not anyone reasonable enough) for content that is available only from the edit history and then clearly without an intent to infringe the copyright (in fact, exactly with the intent to stop infringing the copyright).
— Luchesar • T/C 07:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Other bg.wn content (undetermined)Edit

Status:    In progress

Other articles mentioned at #Possible copyvio content at bg.wikinews I'm certain are likely copyvios. The ones below I'm very unsure about, so I figure that further evaluation is needed. If any one of them is copyvio, it should be deleted. One of previous requests was rejected because, at the time, bg language wasn't understood. I wonder whether the lack of understanding the language would impact this request.

Copied from one of my user subpages:

List of Григор Гачев's (Grigor Gachev's) remaining created articles:

Other articles seen at list of bg.WN articles

--George Ho (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

More articles seen in another revision:

George Ho (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

More articles taken from another revision:

  • n:bg:Рекордни пожари в Амазония — (detector) Most of one paragraph's content looks similar to some portions of either article or the one. Some other areas of the bg.wn article look similar to portions of the article. Just one paragraph of the detailed bg.wn article wouldn't reach to the level of huge copyvio, but it needs rewrite. I couldn't determine whether the rest of the article infringes other sources.
    In my view this content is OK (no copyvio) --Ket (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC) Copied from this revision. --George Ho (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • n:bg:Иран задържа британски танкер (created 21 July) — the detector partially matched one paragraph and another sentence with partial content of the article (published 20 July). However, I'm not confident that just one paragraph would make the case big enough to be copyvio, but I could be wrong.
    IMHO this isn't indeed problematic in terms of copyright. That being said, I also see the typical Stanqo's style of presenting such events in a biased way—the article covers almost exclusively the Iranian POV. — Luchesar • T/C 14:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • n:bg:Почина Фидел Кастро (created 27 Nov 2016) — I can't tell whether the any of the first three paragraphs of the article were taken from the BBC article (pub. 26 Nov). However, the expression looks to brief to tell. The second paragraph erroneously claimed that Fidel Castro died at 19:00 unspecified time zone (02:00 EET / 00:00 UTC). However, according to BBC article, Fidel's brother Raul verified that Fidel's time of death was 22:29 local time (03:29 GMT/UTC). I don't know where the last paragraph originated. However, more importantly, would ru.wn accept the article containing such error about Fidel's time of death? Should it be transferred there?
  • n:bg:Цунами по крайбрежието на Япония: огромни разрушения — (detector) — looks to be translated from article by VOA Russian (old revision). VOA content has been released into public domain right away. If that's okay, then I guess my copyvio concerns would be invalid. However, VOA's content has been questioned, and VOA is deemed by some as "propaganda". If the bg.wn article didn't translate from VOA Russian, then where else?
    I agree that there is text translated from Russian based on mistakes in the text like "нефтепрерабатващия" and "източното крайбережие на Японии" - it should be "нефтопреработвателния" and "източното крайбрежие на Япония" respectively --Ket (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC) Copied from this revision. --George Ho (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

George Ho (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

License compatibility of one bg.wn articleEdit

Status:    In progress

The article n:bg:Научен пробив: земни скали от най-древната епоха могат да се намерят на Луната! was copied from article, which is licensed under CC-BY-SA 2.5, though somehow the link directs to the CC-BY 2.5 license. As of now, the link to the original source is down, but I hope it works again later as it did hours ago. Just in case, here's the archive link from Wayback Machine. The CC-BY-SA wouldn't be one-way compatible with CC-BY, especially per n:en:Wikinews:Copyright. If importing the CC-BY-SA into Wikinews is not legitimate, then the bg.wn copy should be deleted. George Ho (talk) 06:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

First of all, IANAL. But bgwn is not unique in having content with different license than the default CC BY-SA 2.5. For instance there is such content on ruwn and having that in mind we had such content created on ukwn too (I am a part of the latter community thus "we"). In my opinion it should be fine as long as the license is explicitly mentioned. That is done by explicit "additional terms may apply" in the footer and a license template in the article. That being said, again, IANAL. --Base (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@Base, George Ho, and Iliev: IANAL either. But if what you say is true, then all we need to do is to change the license template at the bottom of that page to reflect CC-BY-SA 2.5. (Original is back up here, and I can confirm it says CC-BY-SA 2.5, but that the link points to CC-BY 2.5 [BG].) Iliev, please confirm what I am copy-pasting from Creative Commons's website:
StevenJ81 (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
StevenJ81, probably „Криейтив Комънс – Признание-Споделяне на споделеното 2.5 България“ to be more precise—but I'm concerned exactly about this confusion between the text and the link. There are two CC BY-SA 2.5 licenses relevant to Bulgaria: an unported and a localized one. The link in is to the localized license (but, indeed, to CC BY 2.5 BG, not to BY-SA as expected), while the text of the link itself seems to refer to the unported “CC BY-SA 2.5” (otherwise it should've been “CC BY-SA 2.5 BG”). So, if we decide that the text has precedence over the link (it makes sense to me, though, yeah, IANAL as well), we should probably change the template this way:
— Luchesar • T/C 14:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
So long as the source is CCBY or CCBYSA it should be acceptable on wiki projects, isn't it?13019891ahs (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hijacked domain and predatory spamEdit

Status:    In progress

I came across repeated additions of on a small wiki only to find out that this domain has more than 5000 occurrences x-wiki. It was at one point in time a reputable journal which I believe merged with en:Wiley (publisher), however the domain was sniped and it is now a host of predatory supplement spam/scams. I don't know a reasonable way to solve this problem aside from someone creating a bot task xwiki to replace the url with an archived version (if possible) or remove it entirely. I'm not sure what protocol is here because I've never seen a domain with this heavy use hijacked. Apologies if this isn't the appropriate place to ask this, I honestly am not even sure where to begin. --Praxidicae (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Cyberpower678, could you tell us if perhaps InternetArchiveBot can be of any help here? --Base (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Isn't there some sort of way you can use w:en:WP:AWB to do this? --Rschen7754 05:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I've been unable to find a way to use AWB on more than one project simultaneously, but I suppose we could do runs on individual projects. Vermont (talk) 10:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • In the meanwhile, it's fine to blacklist this domain globally: the publisher never needs to be linked. On the English Wikipedia, if you use citation bot, the redundant URL is automatically removed; elsewhere, where the URL is not in a template or the bot is not available, using Citoid/VisualEditor with the DOI will usually produce the correct result. InternetArchiveBot is probably the most global of the relevant bots but may need some manual tweaking for the URLs outside templates perhaps. Nemo 06:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Started cleaning I'll prefer to do some by hand as in many cases I think it would be prefered to recreate the link (almost certainly in a cite template) using doi and a refgenerator as but this doesn't mean I think a bot solution won't be a good solution for our wikis.—Ah3kal (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Another problem is that the xwiki link tool is limited to 40 projects (top projects) and many of the smaller wikis that won't appear there and COIBot link report maxes out. Beetstra is there a way we can get a full report for all projects? Praxidicae (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @Praxidicae: Full report is not really going to help you, you just have to find all existing links. Running a query on it is going to take way to much time on the server and is going to be unreadable (you would get the addition diffs .. but you don't know if it is still there). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 16:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and created this for now so we can mark off what has been fixed. I'm hitting some of the smaller wikis just by searching alphabetically through the list of projects. Praxidicae (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Did anybody raise a blacklist request? Putting a stop to more additions would be a good idea. QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Since I was pinged, the domain has been blacklisted in IABot and I ran it on the wikis it is approved to run on. They should either have an archive URL attached to it now, or they should be marked as dead.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Sadly that doesn't do much, for instance in [1] the archived version is itself broken. I know it's not IABot's main aim and strength, but the URL should just be removed outright from the "cite journal"-like templates where the DOI is already filled. Nemo 19:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Interestingly, some links to this domain were being marked as dead already in 2017. Maybe the squatting happened later. Nemo 20:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
      Nemo bis It happened on 10/20. Also relevant. Praxidicae (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
      Thanks! Nemo 20:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I cleaned up manually on the Italian Wikipedia. Nemo 20:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • FYI, I am also manually fixing and noting at User:Praxidicae/DOI fix. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 06:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • We've now got a second hijacked domain, Praxidicae (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


Status:    In progress

The document contains two errors and several other warnings. I'd appreciate if a global interface editor with experience in CSS could take a look and assist them in fixing the issues.

Also the following code:

/* CSS for black text external links / blue text on hover */
body.ns-0 a.external,
body.ns-0 a.external:visited, a.external, a.external:visited, a.external, a.external:visited, a.external, a.external:visited, a.external, a.external:visited, a.external, a.external:visited, a.external, a.external:visited, a.external, a.external:visited, a.external, a.external:visited, a.external, a.external:visited, a.external, a.external:visited, a.external, a.external:visited, a.external, a.external:visited, a.external, a.external:visited, a.external, a.external:visited, a.external, a.external:visited, a.external, a.external:visited, a.external, a.external:visited
    color: black;
body.ns-0 a.external:hover,
body.ns-0 a.external:focus, a.external:hover, a.external:focus, a.external:hover, a.external:focus, a.external:hover, a.external:focus, a.external:hover, a.external:focus, a.external:hover, a.external:focus, a.external:hover, a.external:focus, a.external:hover, a.external:focus, a.external:hover, a.external:focus, a.external:hover, a.external:focus, a.external:hover, a.external:focus, a.external:hover, a.external:focus, a.external:hover, a.external:focus, a.external:hover, a.external:focus, a.external:hover, a.external:focus, a.external:hover, a.external:focus, a.external:hover, a.external:focus, a.external:hover, a.external:focus
    color: #0645ad;

is not needed as those pages do not exist on es.wikivoyage (I guess this was a copy-paste from en.voy) and can be removed.

Also, something strange happens to me when visiting that page that makes my PC to freeze intermitently.

Thanks for the assistance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

As this is a GS wiki and no active IAs/'crats, I'll take a look :) --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 12:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio: I guess it's better to replace these Project: pages with the corresponding eswikivoyage local equivalents? --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 12:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't think we have local equivalents of those so I feel it's safe to remove them. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I've done the removal, and reduced warnings from 130+ to 57. I'm marking this as done but feel free to double check if something can be further optimized as I only fixed 100% surely safe things. --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Firstly, I agree with WhitePhosphorus that should be replaced these references to English Wikivoyage pages with the corresponding ones from Spanish Wikivoyage titles if exist, instead of deleting them all. Secondly, It's not like there is not any bureaucrat and interface admins there. There is an active bureaucrat, just there is not activity enough to use the permission, and interface admin is mostly granted ad hoc for a specific task or group of tasks. Therefore, this task could have been asked in Spanish Wikivoyage and performed there, so the best approach could have been done (replacing when possible instead of deleting them all). --Zerabat (discusión) 16:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I've undid the controversial removal. Sorry for that. --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Just left a message on local village pump. --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 11:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
@WhitePhosphorus: Any update? --Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Potential cross-wiki hoaxEdit

Status:    In progress

This is not regular vandalism, but there is potential of a long running con, based on external information. I am asking for several pages and user accounts to be investigated as part of a potential coordinated hoax inside and outside Wikipedia. I may need a Spanish speaker and admins on several wikis (meta, commons, enwiki) for background info.

I was alerted of the following news articles, which I am going to consider as reliable:

This led me to this page en:Helen Mukoro Idisi (Wikidata), which may have to be deleted(?) as potentially being part of the hoax perpetrated by this person. Note that normally criminals (specially alleged ones) should be able to edit Wikipedia with no problems, but there is potential not only of editing articles about oneself, but also being used as part of a con with criminal intent. IMPORTANT: I am not saying this definitely happened, but I need someone to help me research if there is a hoax going on on Commons, meta and enwiki (maybe eswiki too?). From that page I found 2 suspicious accounts (please check global contribs): Aeccspain and HELEN MUKORO, the last one assumes to be the person mentioned in the article above, and has a user bio with data that has been accused by the police as false. The 2 accounts should be checked, as well as potential other editors of en:Helen Mukoro Idisi, en:Unión de Todos and other related articles which could be puppet accounts or meatpuppets of the same person. There could be lots of legitimate users there too, doing helpful edits, but it is difficult to separate them without check user tools and a deeper research, which hopefully someone here can help with. It is also difficult to separate fact from fiction (some facts, like election data, seem correct). --Jynus (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jynus: I will suggest to go to the relevant village pump or start deletion discussions or quick deletion requests. Stewards and Global sysops are not involve in determining hoaxes. I suggest this to be locally handled. For sock-puppetry, it will be best to file an SPI or follow local procedures, more detail on Checkuser policy. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Links to File:User-info.svgEdit

Status:    In progress

File:User-info.svg is licensed as CC-BY-SA-3.0, which requires attribution. When using files that require attribution, general practice is to leave the image's link as unspecified, resulting in the image linking to the file itself. A number of interface messages on various wikis, however, use this file without providing any clear attribution, usually by specifying |link= (a blank value, resulting in no link) or another target. Please remove such specifications to comply with the attribution requirements of this image.

Having scanned through the first few dozen wikis, the following interface messages appear to not provide the attribution needed. Updating these messages to include links should fall within the scope of Interface editors as "non-controversial maintenance".

This is just a partial list. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

DannyS712, I agree that this should be done, but can you please find a CC-0 or PD icon to use instead? I am afraid some local users might not understand why we are doing this if we just add the link or such. --Base (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
All similar icons are from the GNOME project and are licensed the same way. Changing the visual display is arguably more drastic than just restoring the link. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I have done some of the above if on GS wikis per the "non-controversial maintenance". If my understanding is correct, this is the MediaWiki default. Changing the icon would be a controversial change requiring discussion. ~riley (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Nope, don't think so - the mediawiki default doesn't include the images, each wiki added them. Can you mark the ones you did? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Pardon me, I didn't account for the possibility that what Mediawiki have enabled might not reflect the default; the ones I did should be marked. ~riley (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

One (or more) article from Korean WikinewsEdit

Status:    In progress

Now that -revi resigned as ko.wn admin (but is still a steward), I would like a steward to review this article n:ko:5호선 하남 연장선, 6월 개통 어려울 듯 and ask whether it resembles the source that the article cites,, even when the match is not exact. GTX1060 created the article; Trainholic asserts that both are not the same. I checked a few paragraphs and found some resemblances; Trainholic is disputing my findings. BTW, I have proposed closure of the Korean Wikinews. George Ho (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Almost forgot: this was previously discussed hours ago. George Ho (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it's too much to try to find similarities in numbers and dates. 한국어를 하실 수 있는 사무장님께서 해당 사안을 판단해주실 것을 요청드립니다.(I ask that Steward, who can speak Korean, judge the case.)--Trainholic (talk) 06:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

GTX1060, let's not bug -revi's user talk page at ko.wn anymore. The steward barely has the time to check out the article and the source. Another steward Sotiale understands the language and can analyze. George Ho (talk) 06:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

GTX1060 and Trainholic, it's not just the numbers, figures, and dates. Look at the paragraphs and whole sentences, and then compare the ones from the other source. George Ho (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I admit that the article in "5호선 하남 연장선, 6월 개통 어려울 듯" was written with reference to the article in the hankookilbo. However, is it possible to say that '215 people', '4 weeks from 20th' and '27th of June' are the same as the original article? As trainholic says, sidewalks are similar because they are about one fact. In particular, it is difficult to differentiate the figures such as '215'. GTX1060 (talk) 06:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Hmm.. after a quick look, I think this is not a copyvio. the part was pointed is only a very general expression and refers to the facts. No originality or creativity is found. I've looked at the whole article, but it's vague to think of it as a copyvio, although someone can discuss the quality of the article. I would recommend to kowikinews users: cite multiple sources or cover them yourself, and don't follow the content flow of other articles. Also, paraphrasing is recommended no matter how common the facts are. This will be important for you to avoid the misunderstanding of copyvio. There are currently no admins on kowikinews, so I will go over there very occasionally if necessary. If there is a copyvio, the article will be deleted immediately, and may be blocked if the action continues. --Sotiale (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Ah. Earwig's copyvio tool is doing okay...ish? Seems that only one sentence is concerning, but I guess I might have been wrong about the rest? George Ho (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Also, here's the tool comparing one revision with the source. George Ho (talk) 11:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
So your point is? I also looked through the tool, so you don't have to present it to me. --Sotiale (talk) 11:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup on elwikivoyageEdit

Status:    Done

Please see voy:el:Special:Contributions/Surdu459 - a lot of vandalism page moves that need to be deleted for the original pages to be moved back --DannyS712 (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

  Doing...--Turkmen talk 16:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  Done I spent an hour on this? :o--Turkmen talk 17:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks so much --DannyS712 (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

OAuth permissionsEdit

  Preferably permission requests should be submitted using the form from Special:OAuthConsumerRegistration.

After submitting this form, you will receive a token that your application will use to identify itself to MediaWiki. An OAuth administrator will need to approve your application before it can be authorized by other users. It is possible to request approval using {{oauthapprequest}}, please create a sub-section to this part.

A few recommendations and remarks:

  • Try to use as few grants as possible. Avoid grants that are not actually needed now.
  • Versions are of the form "major.minor.release" (the last two being optional) and increase as grant changes are needed.
  • Please provide a public RSA key (in PEM format) if possible; otherwise a (less secure) secret token will have to be used.
  • Use the JSON restrictions field to limit access of this consumer to IP addresses in those CIDR ranges.
  • You can use a project ID to restrict the consumer to a single project on this site (use "*" for all projects).
  • The email address provided must match that of your account (which must have been confirmed).

See alsoEdit